Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

markmc999 v HFC - HFC claim that OFT ruling does not apply to them


markmc999
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6434 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

First post here so please be nice to me :)

 

I am working on behalf of my parents so sent in the standard letters as you talked about and sent them the initial refund request and statement of charges. I received a reply back today saying:

 

The OFT has been investigating the level of default charges in respect to the Credit Card industry. However, your account does not relate to a credit card agreement and therefore we do not accept that it is covered by the OFT's investigation or the announcement it made on 5th April 2006.

 

Default charges are made if customers do not make the required minimum payment by the payment due date, or if a payment to their account is returned unpaid. We believe that the fees imposed by HFC Bank Ltd. are fair and reasonable and the circumstances when they apply are set out in the T&C's of the account.

 

I would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to my attention. I regret that we are not prepared to make any refund or default charges, or provide compensation payments.

 

Ultimatley, if you remain dissatisfied, your complaint can be referred to the Finance and Leasing Association as an independent adjudicator financial firms and their customers.

 

I know that the letter they have sent is a fob off - the thing from the OFT is factually incorrect.

 

However I dont know what to do now, do I go back to HFC with a letter saying this (is this letter a standard fob off? It doesnt seem to be) or should I go straight to the Finance and Leasing Association.

 

I'd prefer to go back to the bank and give them another 14 days, what do you guys think? Any standard letters I could use?

 

Also one of the charges on the account was for nearly £300 with no explanation or anything, should we detail this as a seperate item in the letter? It has been listed on the statement of charges but not sure what else to do about it. My dad did phone the bank about it and was told "urm. no idea at all what it is or why you have been charged it".

 

Thanks guys!

 

Hopefully I have made some sense!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

First post here so please be nice to me :)

 

I am working on behalf of my parents so sent in the standard letters as you talked about and sent them the initial refund request and statement of charges. I received a reply back today saying:

 

 

 

I know that the letter they have sent is a fob off - the thing from the OFT is factually incorrect.

 

However I dont know what to do now, do I go back to HFC with a letter saying this (is this letter a standard fob off? It doesnt seem to be) or should I go straight to the Finance and Leasing Association.

 

I'd prefer to go back to the bank and give them another 14 days, what do you guys think? Any standard letters I could use?

 

Also one of the charges on the account was for nearly £300 with no explanation or anything, should we detail this as a seperate item in the letter? It has been listed on the statement of charges but not sure what else to do about it. My dad did phone the bank about it and was told "urm. no idea at all what it is or why you have been charged it".

 

Thanks guys!

 

Hopefully I have made some sense!!

 

Just go straigh ahead with your LBA. With the total amount claimed put as 2 items eg £xxx items on statements with descriptions + £xxx charges on satements wit hno description or expalnation = £xxxx total that I am reclaiming from you.

 

Good Luck

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I say anything within the letter about there reply being factually incorrect or not?

 

Hmmm... decisions decisions :)

 

Thanks for a prompt reply by the way!

 

Its not factually incorrect, The OFT does not mention banks. You are claiming using common/statute and various consumer regs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...